In Obama’s war on leaks, reporters fight back
Leonard Downie, a former executive editor of The Washington Post, is the Weil family professor of journalism at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. This article is based on his report “The Obama Administration and the Press,” forthcoming Thursday from the Committee to Protect Journalists.By Leonard Downie Jr. - WaPo
Published: October 4, 2013

In the Watergate era, the Nixon administration’s telephone wiretaps were the biggest concern for journalists and sources worried about government surveillance. That was one of the reasons why Bob Woodward met with FBI official Mark Felt (a.k.a. “Deep Throat”) in an underground parking garage in Arlington, and why he and Carl Bernstein did much of their reporting by knocking on the front doors of their sources’ homes. Except for the aborted prosecution of Daniel Ellsberg for the leak of the Pentagon Papers, criminal culpability or pervasive surveillance were not major concerns, especially after Richard Nixon resigned the presidency in 1974.

Not so now. With the passage of the Patriot Act after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a vast expansion of intelligence agencies and their powers, the aggressive exploitation of intrusive digital surveillance capabilities, the excessive classification of public documents and officials’ sophisticated control of the news media’s access to the workings of government, journalists who cover national security are facing vast and unprecedented challenges in their efforts to hold the government accountable to its citizens. They find that government officials are increasingly fearful of talking to them, and they worry that their communications with sources can be monitored at any time.

So what are they doing? Many reporters covering national security and government policy in Washington these days are taking precautions to keep their sources from becoming casualties in the Obama administration’s war on leaks. They and their remaining government sources often avoid telephone conversations and e-mail exchanges, arranging furtive one-on-one meetings instead. A few news organizations have even set up separate computer networks and safe rooms for journalists trained in encryption and other ways to thwart surveillance.

“I worry now about calling somebody because the contact can be found out through a check of phone records or e-mails,” said veteran national security journalist R. Jeffrey Smith of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit accountability news organization. “It leaves a digital trail that makes it easier for government to monitor those contacts.”

And...

Will Obama recognize that all this threatens his often-stated but unfulfilled goal of making government more transparent and accountable? None of the Washington news media veterans I talked to were optimistic.

“Whenever I’m asked what is the most manipulative and secretive administration I’ve covered, I always say it’s the one in office now,” Bob Schieffer, CBS News anchor and chief Washington correspondent, told me. “Every administration learns from the previous administration. They become more secretive and put tighter clamps on information. This administration exercises more control than George W. Bush’s did, and his before that.”

4. Should be common sense, with the advent of the internet...

8. "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government."

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

10. Downie and the WP were too busy being Bush/Cheney lapdogs to notice

11. "This administration exercises more control than George W. Bush’s did"

What a bunch of garbage. Bush hid everything and lied about everything. It took the Obama administration to release some e-mails that organizations were demanding from Bush for years.

Transparency, Declassification, and the Obama Presidency

By Lee White

<...>

Steven Aftergood (Director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists and the publisher of the blog Secrecy News)

In retrospect, the Administration erred in making its early public statements promising unprecedented transparency. The President raised expectations so high that the ensuing disappointment was inevitable. The smarter move would have been to demonstrate openness in actions, not in words, and to exceed public expectations.

<...>

Thomas Blanton (Director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.)

There are obviously some differences of opinion on this subject. My own is that too often we conflate "the Obama administration" with actions of specific agencies or specific bureaucrats, when in fact the policy decision at the top has been pretty good, just stymied by ongoing bureaucratic obfuscation in the middle and the bottom. Or even worse, continuity by federal career employees of Bush policies that the White House has not succeeded in changing.

<...>

Anne Weismann (Chief Counsel for Citizen's for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington-CREW)

In my assessment, the administration's record on transparency is mixed. Without question, President Obama put strong, pro-transparency policies in place that really set the benchmark for a more open government. The problem has been in implementing those policies at the agency level. Agencies have been encouraged to make proactive disclosures, but they have shown little regard for the quality of and public interest in the information they are posting. And the administration has not provided them much guidance on this front.

<...>

Patrice McDermott (Executive Director of OpenTheGovernment.Org)

I think it is a very mixed bag. There are strong indications that the initiatives and efforts of the Obama Administration have begun to institutionalize changes in the attitudes of components of the Executive Branch, mostly in the area of domestic right-to-know. While the effectiveness of FOIA as a disclosure and accountability tool for the public continues to lag behind the promises the President and the Attorney General made, much more attention is being directed by agencies to improving the process, and agencies are putting more information out proactively (without requiring or waiting for a FOIA request)—and not just the usual stuff they want you to know. The greatest frustration on the domestic policy front has been the ongoing changes in policy personnel in the White House, creating problems of follow-through and consistency.

17. READ the quotes then!!!!!

Did you miss this, among others?
"are strong indications that the initiatives and efforts of the Obama Administration have begun to institutionalize changes in the attitudes of components of the Executive Branch"

... one year ago, federal and state investigators became aware of an individual trading images of child pornography online in September 2010. An extensive investigation into that individual led to the arrest of a defendant in Illinois in January 2012. Upon arrest, a forensic search of that defendant’s computer equipment and e-mail accounts allegedly revealed that he had been actively trading the explicit materials online with numerous other people ... Court documents filed today indicate that Sachtleben has petitioned the federal court to enter a plea of guilty to charges that he knowingly possessed and distributed child pornography. The agreement to plead guilty also includes restitution payments of $20,000 to an identified victim portrayed in the materials Sachtleben allegedly possessed ...Carmel Man Petitions to Plead Guilty to Charges of Possession, Distribution of Child PornographyU.S. Attorney Announces More Results in Ongoing Project Safe Childhood Initiative
U.S. Attorney’s Office May 14, 2013

22. Cheney had a secret room.

This is mostly sour grapes from those that can't get anything on Obama. Not a whiff of scandal, so all they have nothing left to say, but that he's secretive. If he had let on to any of these guys, his ultimate plan for Syria, how would that have ended instead? Not nearly as well, I'm sure.

19. There's no question this administration has abused the Espionage Act

like no other.

Despite promises to strengthen protections for whistleblowers, the Obama administration has launched an aggressive crackdown on government employees who have leaked national security information to the press.

With charges filed against NSA leaker Edward Snowden this June, the administration has brought a total of seven cases under the Espionage Act, which dates from World War I and criminalizes disclosing information “relating to the national defense.” Prior to the current administration, there had been only three known casesresulting in indictments in which the Espionage Act was used to prosecute government officials for leaks.

49. If someone breaks the law,

in how information was attained, how the H can you or anyone expect Obama not to feel that responsibility has to be taken for it. As president he must apply the law evenly to all. Sometimes, the means doesn't always justify the end. The next whistle-blower may not be as altruistic as you feel Snowden was. It has nothing to do with Obama's stand on transparency, if someone breaks the law.

Granted, the info that Snowden leaked was something I'm glad we know about. But there were other ways to do it. But he's young and felt he was doing the right thing. I get that.

But, how much is that on the NSA greed for control and power. Or the CIA or the FBI who behave criminally to attain their goals. Not everything like that is on Obama. Saying it's on his watch means little, when you realize that he can't be omnipotent of knowing everything of what those agencies are doing.

There is more put on him than is accurate. He only has so much power to do things. And even then, he has to hold back for the good of the country and us. I wish he could use the 14th amendment to put those teahadist creeps in their place. He could, but he knows that isn't the right thing to do.

69. No. This is abuse of a law aimed at spies, to punish

whistleblowers. Not some kind of objective application of the law. Thomas Drake pursued the chain of command and eventually released evidence of real government wrongdoing, and received an FBI takedown, dishonest post facto classification of documents, and threats of decades of imprisonment. No one genuinely thought he was a spy.

This is the selective, disingenuous abuse of the law to protect government wrongdoing.

The focus on "Obama" and "Snowden" is all yours. This is not an issue of personalities. It is not a choice between who anyone "supports." It is a question of bad faith prosecution of whistleblowers as criminals and inexcusable government overreach.

Whether the fault likes with the President, or elsewhere in his administration, or how it reflects on anyone politically is not relevant. This behavior is wrong and harmful, and dishonest to the core.

31. Especially when the article in the OP is implying the current admin is worse than Nixon ever was.

As if anything Obama's people are doing comes close to assassinating journalists.

The OP is just more of the same hysterical anti-Obama stupidity fueled by RW hatred of everything the man does. It's surprising & disappointing that such is allowed on DU, and even more so that some are foolish enough to support it.

35. Actually

baldguys reply of "The OP is just more of the same hysterical anti-Obama stupidity fueled by RW hatred of everything the man does. It's surprising & disappointing that such is allowed on DU, and even more so that some are foolish enough to support it." was not what I would call polite discourse.
If you are going to call people out, it might be nice to do so in an even manner. Good evening. I hope you have a wonderful rest of the weekend.

41. Ah... You're Fairly New...

42. If you're saying

that "We're winning" remark is stupid and insensitive, I agree. So, I'm not getting your point.
This, I do get.....
I hate politics and worse yet, I haven't a real clue on how to play that game. It's an alien concept for me.

That hurt me in my career. Once a co-worker came to me when I was in the midst of yet, another controversy, saying "You're right, but it's just politics...." I had no idea what the f she meant.... seriously. I thought I was on the side of "right". But that doesn't matter in politics.

What I do know, is that 95% or more of what I hear and read, can't be taken with a grain of salt and it's just words to fill the void in people's lives.

Maybe I do have much to learn about a format like DU. It's new to me, as all things PC are to me, as I'm very new to it as well. Being retired, I have the time to learn internet stuff and read and post on liberal sites.

But, I can only be myself. Though I'm learning (trying) to mellow my outspokenness.

But I still don't know if you agree with Schieffer or not; that Obama's administration is even more secretive compared to others. That's the point of the article.

45. Well thank you :)

I was only speaking to baldguy's #20 post. I suppose he then felt embaldened (sorry) to say more. That's his responsibility, solely.

I will always try to help the underdog. If I haven't learned to shut-up by now, at my age, I never will There is no reason to be so sarcastic to another for a silly, possibly incorrect assumption. Agree to disagree, fine.

I don't envy you in the work place today. I think the politic game-playing is getting even worse. My sons tell me horror stories. They are somewhat idealists like their mama.

As far as your thoughts on Obama's secrecy, I think that he has to walk a fine line there. I may be wrong, but I think that he believed what he originally said and now that he's in the position of what can be made available and what can't be, is a whole different kettle of fish. The incredible availability of information today, is staggering. And that isn't and hasn't always been a good thing. Anyone can learn to make a bomb, for instance.

I guess I'd like to hear from those that criticize Obama for not being transparent enough, is what exactly do they want to be made known. What is that they think is not being made available? Is not hearing something about say, CIA and foreign embassy communications, necessary to know for our livelihoods? Or could that be harmful to the people working there?

Overall, I disagree with that article. Much of it is a stretch and exaggeration.
I feel that Obama does take into consideration every point he keeps back and those he airs to the public, as it pertains to our safety. If I am proven wrong on that, then I'll admit to it. If he keeps things back for purely political gain, then he's not the man I voted for.

58. I completely agree

Watching that horrendous, senseless killing was terrible. The part of that soldier begging to let him shoot, made me ill. The military has always been too big and powerful. They have gotten away with atrocities since the beginning.

Responsibility has to be taken for these actions and they are criminal. But that's only if we lived in an ideal world. Which we don't, but that's never an excuse or justification.

46. I was sincere in my wish for your weekend

Baldguy has a history on this site. I view him in light of that history. I was as polite about it as I am able today. I don't think it is "dumb" to highlight that this person is just as rude as anyone could wish in the following post. It is par for the course for him. This fact is easily found via the google this site search bar on the top of the page. I am perhaps one of the most honest people you would ever meet but I don't judge posters that I have "met" for the first time as readily as you.

62. Fair enough

But two wrongs don't make a right. You still went to bat for Bevar22's rude post. Why did you find it necessary to do that? You could instead, have given me a head's up about baldguy, instead of choosing to taking me to task, as you did. Or ignored it, thereby not making it more important than it deserved.

I didn't judge you, but you certainly did with me, by including baldguy's second post in that judgement, making it a false admonishment. That was disingenuous on your part saying I'm not even handed about calling someone out. You know that I called bvar out BEFORE bg's second post. How is that being honest?

You are very good with words and can cut deftly with a polite smile. I envy those who are adept with sarcasm like that. So I found your weekend wish, somewhat suspect. But since it was sincere, I thank you and wish you a lovely Sunday.

Btw, I rarely look anyone up from here on Google. Who has the time? I'm lucky if I can get through the first page of GD, each day.

64. Why did you find it necessary to bat for baldguy's rude post?

Name calling ("hater"),
attacking the messenger,
making knee jerk, no substance comments embarrassingly exposing the fact that one hasn't bothered to read the OP is NOT the Hallmark of Politeness.

I responded in kind.
I actually did him a favor by telling him that his zipper was still down and toilet paper stuck to his shoe after dancing out of the bathroom trying to act cool with his "hater" remarks.
A little caution and a self-check before going public will save him future embarrassments like this one.
I'm just helpful like that.

72. Here's some free

advice. Get over yourself.

Haters against Obama are a very real thing. That article was about haters of Obama. So saying there are haters is not rude, it's the truth. He was less rude than what the haters say and what they do against Obama and us. Like wanting to destroy Obamacare for those who really need it.

And for all you know that's what he was commenting on and did actually read the article. You don't really know that... But you decided to take him to task in a harsh way.

As I said, that says more about you as a person, than anything about him.

24. Oh the poor babies!

The administration just puts all of the information it wants to share directly on the Internet and in FOIA responses. The poor, poor journalists don't get to wet their beaks at all under this administration.

25. And Yet... The Thing You Say, And... The OPPOSITE Of What You Say...

The administration just puts all of the information it wants to share directly on the Internet and in FOIA responses. The poor, poor journalists don't get to wet their beaks at all under this administration.

Basically destroys a major part of the 1st Amendment.

Putting out what YOU WANT to say is sometimes called "Propaganda".

And criminalizing what YOU DON'T want said/reported... has a couple of other words associated with it.

By mid-March 2003, Washington Post journalist Walter Pincus is skeptical of Colin Powell’s speech to the UN (see February 5, 2003) and develops material for an article questioning Powell’s evidence. However, his editors are not interested.

Page A17 - But thanks to pressure from his colleague Bob Woodward, the Post runs his story on March 16, but only on page A17 ...

Follow-up - Two days later, the Post publishes another critical story by Pincus, this one co-written with Dana Milbank ... However, this story only appears on page A13.

Third Story Held Until After Start of War - Around the same time, Post journalists Dana Priest and Karen DeYoung turn in a story that says CIA officials “communicated significant doubts to the administration” about evidence tying Iraq to attempted uranium purchases for nuclear weapons. But the story is held until March 22, three days after the Iraq war begins ...

After examining The Washington Post's coverage of prewar intelligence on Iraq, executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. admitted that the newspaper did not give "proper play" to stories that could have been seen as challenging the Bush administration's pro-war arguments. Despite this admission, it appears the Post is following the same pattern in its coverage of intelligence on Iran's nuclear capability ...

The Post's tendency to bury those stories challenging Bush's pro-war arguments on Iraq was clearly evident in the six months leading up to the war. The White House campaign to drum up support for military action against Iraq escalated in late August and early September 2002. During that period, the Post ran several front-page articles that -- beneath alarming headlines -- highlighted the administration's assertions ...

68. Ok, I did read the entire opinion and come to a different conclusion which I hope is permissable.

First, this administration has come under the most brutal and often condescending scrutiny than any other in my memory. President Obama has endured more slings and arrows than even Bill Clinton, and Bill's a good old white guy.
I would have been surprised if the administration didn't circle the wagons. Every single leak, every single statement, every single movement has been criticized and dissected. He bowed to mullahs, he didn't salute the flag, he did salute the flag, he put his hand over his heart, he didn't put his hand over his heart, he not an American in his heart, ad nauseam. It's a wonder any policy was ever discussed amid such nonsense, that our corporate media perpetuated.

Second, I know this author has great credentials, but in my very humble opinion, the corporate mainstream media has become fairly lazy and whiney. Rather than conducting in depth interviews and researching real issues, they whine about no access. Mainstream corporate media reporters like Bob Schieffer lost credibility with me long ago.

Third, I'm seeing an honesty here I haven't seen for a long time. We're a long way from the transparency we deserve, but worse than the past? No way!

80. Really? Swarm? What's YOUR "strategy?"

81. Everyone is talking past each other

I get the definite impression everyone here is talking past each other, and not alot of people are actually reading the article.

One can make the case that the Administration is working to make things like FOIA and other initiatives actually work. They are meeting some Resistance in the other agencies, and it is taking time to change the culture.

However, what this article was about, was that when they DON'T want certain information getting out, or more importantly after it DOES get out, they can be VERY aggressive in hunting down the sources of leaks. Up to and including the searching of digital records (including phone logs at the newspaper itself). That is why people aren't making calls of any sort, because of the meta data. They are going to pencil and paper (going back?) to avoid detection.

Of course in there is the comment that "every administration learns from the last". Which suggests that all that is happening here is that there is an over arching trend toward more government surveillance in defense of the government agencies themselves, and it has been going on a long time.

People will immediately jump upon the apparent conflict between a promise of more openness, and a hostile and aggressive investigation of leaks. Technically, it isn't a conflict at all, they promise to be very open about what they want to tell you about. Anything else, and they'll hunt you down and find you. It just doesn't make a great campaign slogan. But by now we've all learned that with this administration. Watch what they do so you can understand what they meant.